It was roughly a year ago that independent reporting by Michael R. Allen on land assemblage in North St. Louis appeared on the front page of the Post-Dispatch under Jake Wagman’s byline. An Old North resident and urban conservation activist, Allen had done an exhaustive amount of research that connected a large number of apparently independent land acquisitions to developer Paul McKee Jr. The Post story tied McKee’s veiled real estate investments to a bill in the state Legislature that would benefit a developer with a portfolio very much like McKee had assembled in North St. Louis.
An activist’s hints at dark conspiracies by a powerful developer appeared, almost unbelievably, on the front page of the Post-Dispatch, which is usually friendly to any suggestion of economic development and this City Hall. McKee’s maintenance of his North City properties and his intentions for the land have been constant sources of speculation and demagoguery ever since.
Candid conversations with other developers have turned up puzzlement over the especially harsh treatment McKee has received. They acknowledge that it is standard operating procedure to assemble land covertly and attempt to influence legislation that will provide tax credits for redevelopment in an urban context. They also know it is rational to keep your development plans close to your chest until all of the critical pieces are in place to move forward. They were puzzled that the Post story and much media attention that followed upon it have been lacking in context and a sense of realpolitik.
A set of primary elections in Missouri are coming up on August 8, with an historic general election on November 4. There are signs that community pressure and the need for additional investment, both financial and political, will lead McKee to disclose more of his plans in the coming months. We urge candidates for office – including Attorney General Jeremiah “Jay” Nixon and the candidates for the 5th Senatorial seat in Missouri – to take the question of McKee’s development plans off of their campaign agendas until more has been disclosed about his intentions.
McKee’s collaboration with Clayco on the NorthPark project has made it evident that he can do business in a political context that requires minority inclusion goals, for both subcontractors and workforce. It is unimaginable that McKee could proceed with massive development plans in North City unless he were prepared to meet similar expectations. Also, he has seen Mayor Francis G. Slay take a bruising from the black community over his blunders on school reform and pompous, unrepentant treatment of Fire Chief Sherman George. McKee must approach development in North City with the proper sensitivity to a highly charged and deeply suspicious community.
It is not often that we quote the mayor favorably these days, but consider what Slay posted on his campaign website last June after the Post had run its piece on McKee’s North City holdings: “No project in North St. Louis, no matter how significant, will be able to treat current residents or employers unfairly. No property owner, no matter how substantial his holdings, will be immune to the City’s regulations. And should there ever be a redevelopment plan for the area, current stakeholders must be included in the process.”
On these important points, we agree with the mayor.
The stakes are high. There is an undeniable need to address the deeply entrenched decline of much of North St. Louis. There is a desperate need for substantial change in the fortunes of these neighborhoods and their residents. Renewal of the area will require massive capital investment and significant public subsidy, and McKee’s project may be able to bring these elements to the table. To single him out (or politicians who supported the land assemblage tax credit) for political gain in the current campaigns would be a mistake. The real enemies here are the cumulative years of neglect and disinvestment.